elohiym
Well-known member
I disagree. The "death culture" develops in a culture that is willing to ignore and trample on the rights of others.
It not about a "gun culture," but a "death culture."
- Thread starter elohiym
- Start date
I disagree. The "death culture" develops in a culture that is willing to ignore and trample on the rights of others.
elohiym
Well-known member
How can you tell they are evil? You must be measuring them by some standard. :think:
Would you be adverse to using the platitude "survival" when you speak of warfare...Your view of warfare throughout history is myopic & naive at best.
glorydaz
Well-known member
lain:I don't want to waste my time. You should always check out what is said on your own--if you are curious.
Which you are not.
Jesus knew what he was doing. So did those Jews and citizens who used nonviolence against Hitler's armies.
Gays and Jews are NOT "elites impersonating the oppressed."
If you cannot be accountable for your own violence, revenge fantasies and scapegoating of others, then there is really no point in continuing to talk to you--is there?OK. I don't think so, but OK.
Do you have a source?
If what you feel is actually true, then I agree with you, but I don't think it is true.
It wasn't an accident, but was probably in response to the Supreme Court's decision which explicitly ruled that the R.K.B.A. has to do with self-defense, and has precisely nothing to with involvement or lack thereof in any militia.
And so therefore, that is actually what the Second Amendment says, Constitutionally. It doesn't matter what you or I or the NRA thinks that it says.
It just so happens that the Supreme Court has ruled that it says what the NRA says that it says.
DJ
1.2
In 1989-90, 14 nations underwent nonviolent revolutions--and they were all successful but Red China.
Jesus and the great prophets of the Hebrew Bible were realists.
Their insight about the weakness of the sword is borne out every day.
Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela have shown us the power of nonviolent resistance. Theologian and peace activist Gene Sharp has listed nearly 200 nonviolent actions around the world, but are ignored because news is addicted to the flash of conflict and war.
Britain's India colony of 300 million people was liberated nonviolently at a cost of 8,000 lives. France's Algerian Colony was liberated by violence and left one million dead.
So how'd that Bush-Cheney operation work out? ISIS, anyone?
PureX
Well-known member
If only we would at least TRY to take the nonviolent route, first. And choose to see it as the more courageous option, I think we would be a far better nation, and a far more secure and peaceful people.
gcthomas
New member
Attacking airfields is defensive, just as punching a mugger is defensive.
Going on to attack civilian areas or invading to hold on to the territory of the aggressor is offensive, just as chasing after the mugger you have beaten off and shooting him in the back goes beyond the reasonable force allowed for defensive purposes.
Using aggression in your defence does not make your actions offensive unless you are trying to do more than defend yourself and take something from the attacker.
I only offered some historical data and statistics that any objective observer could agree with.
Maybe in your mind I "lost" because too many Christians do not care for a Jesus who says "don't judge," "love your enemies" or "pray for those who persecute you."
I cannot speak for the dead, nor will I. You and I must be unflinchingly honest: there is no way we can ever know what anyone seemed or did not seem about anything at the moment of their death.
Nonviolent protest is part of our national DNA. It is always preferable to scapegoating others and solving problems by other means rather than giving in passively or fighting back aggressively.
Any careful reader of history will find out it works. And those who try to stand with Jesus in their own lives have found that a nonviolent approach is possible and today--mandatory.
PureX
Well-known member
Actually, it does. And we can know this by recognizing the differences in our possible response. If someone attacks me, I can fend off their attack without attacking the attacker. Or I can attack the attacker. I have this choice because these are two DIFFERENT courses of active response available to me. One is defensive, and the other is offensive. And it's important that we understand that these two different courses of action exist, and that we do have a choice in how we respond.
I think that because a lot of Americans don't understand that there is a difference between aggression and defense, we don't understand that we have various options in the face of aggression by others. I also think we have powerful entities in our culture that want us to remain ignorant on this score, because they stand to gain from the violence we engage in as a nation. Which is all the more reason why we need to try and recognize that we have other options, and choices, besides attacking the attacker.
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you mean like if only we had let the UN try to reign in Saddam's wmd's before we invaded?
elohiym
Well-known member
The OP is not about homosexuals or people of Jewish ethnicity. My point wasn't about them. Your response to my point doesn't make sense to me.
You write this drivel without any knowledge of history and pretend others speak in platitudes about warfare? you are a nut job...
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Dan Emanuel
Active member
I'm accountable for my own violence.
I haven't had a revenge fantasy since I finally learned how poor I was in being able to forgive others. I thought I was a natural at it. Turns out no. I had to learn obedience. "As we forgive those who trespass against us."
I don't understand how I scapegoat others.
DJ
1.0
You are making me confused. The thread was about "gun culture."
The use of guns includes violence and in my view, a Jesus-based nonviolence.
Violence is usually excused in the American Empire if it is done against what our culture considers human expendables. The Nazis saw the Jews as expendable, just as many now feel gay sex is equally evil.
Does that seem fair to you? Do you understand my thinking and can you yourself relate it to the topic at hand?